| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,667 Views) | |
| foxglove | May 21 2014, 08:25 AM Post #571 |
|
This is what happens when a product like health insurance is mandated and is too expensive. Or someone loses his/her health care coverage and can't afford the new health care insurance. According to Dick Morris, the software was not ready for people enrolling, so whose fault is that? Of course, some people could expect less pay if their full time job became part time (another problem of Obamacare). Over the top government meddling is messing things up. Edited by foxglove, May 21 2014, 08:31 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| foxglove | May 21 2014, 08:34 AM Post #572 |
|
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/federal-biosurveillance-plan-seeking-direct-access-americans Federal ‘Biosurveillance’ Plan Seeking Direct Access to Americans’ Private Medical Records "... Health situational awareness includes biosurveillance and other health and non-health inputs (e.g., lab/diagnostics, health service utilization, active intelligence, and supply chain information), as well as systems and processes for effective communication among responders and critical health resource monitoring and allocation,” the draft states. But Brase warns that the NHSS proposal would allow the federal government to monitor an individual’s behavior before, during and after any government-defined health “incident” – which could be anything from a local outbreak of the flu to a terrorist anthrax attack. “It’s very broad. It doesn’t seem to have any limits, except they say something about, you know, properly protecting the data. But from our perspective, if the government gets access to this kind of data, [and] is allowed to do research with the data…then our privacy has already been compromised. The government has already said that our data is their data for their purposes of national health security,” Brase told CNSNews.com. “It’s very clear to us that really the government is moving toward real-time access, toward close collaboration of government and doctors for ready access to the electronic medical record and then to conduct research and analysis.” “I don’t think they ever mentioned the word merging, but this is a very close connection they want between public health, which is the government, and clinical health, which is your doctor’s office and the hospital, for whatever diseases they choose to have reported,” she added. Brase noted that the information collected by the government will be “all-encompassing” and include “what our health status is, whether we exercise, how often we get a cold, or what kind of medications we’re taking. They’re also looking at the climate, and the economic condition of the country, as all being a party of this National Health Security Strategy.” “In other words, anything and everything could become a health threat by the government’s standards,” she said..." |
|
|
|
| foxglove | May 21 2014, 08:54 AM Post #573 |
|
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1 he Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.. The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections. Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law. They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years...." “If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now.”- Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com ft▼ |
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 09:36 AM Post #574 |
|
The LATimes always gives me a window demanding that I update the Safari browser I am using. Is there more to this article? The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions...to hold down premium increases for next year I'd mentioned how the rates would go up unless they change the rules. Delay, delay, delay... they'll face the cumulative PREMIUM increases from Obamacare, combined with the enormous increase from the end of the 3-R's in the premiums coming out just prior to the 2016 election! . |
|
|
| foxglove | May 21 2014, 10:15 AM Post #575 |
|
The entire article. he Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.. The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections. Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law. They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years. “If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now.”- Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com ft▼ SHARE THIS QUOTE But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls. Although little noticed so far, the plan was already beginning to fuel a new round of attacks Tuesday from the healthcare law's critics. "If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now," wrote Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com. On Capitol Hill, Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee began circulating a memo on the issue and urging colleagues to fight what they are calling "another end-run around Congress." l Related Politics NowDemocrats should run on Obamacare, Bill Clinton saysSee all relatedí 7 Obama administration officials said the new regulations would not put taxpayers at risk. "We are confident this three-year program will not create a shortfall," Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement. "However, we want to be clear that in the highly unlikely event of a shortfall, HHS will use appropriations as available to fill it." The stakes are high for President Obama and the healthcare law. Although more than 8 million people signed up for health coverage under the law, exceeding expectations, insurance companies in several states have been eyeing significant rate increases for next year amid concerns that their new customers are older and sicker than anticipated. Insurers around the country have started to file proposed 2015 premiums, just as the midterm campaigns are heating up. Obamacare, as the law is often called, remains a top campaign issue, and big premium increases in states with tightly contested races could prove politically disastrous for Democrats. If rates go up dramatically, consumers may also turn away from insurance marketplaces in some states, leading to their collapse. Opinion Related story: Obamacare's employer mandate isn't worth the trouble, study saysby Jon Healey Proposed increases in a few states where insurers have already filed 2015 rates have been relatively low, with several major carriers seeking just single-digit hikes. But insurers in closely watched states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Arkansas, are still preparing their filings. "It's absolutely paramount to keep premiums in check," said Len Nichols, a health economist at George Mason University who has advised officials working on the law. The state-based marketplaces, which opened last year, allow consumers who do not get health coverage at work to shop among plans that meet basic standards. Sick consumers cannot be turned away, and low- and moderate-income Americans qualify for government subsidies to offset their premiums. c Comments @Fred Doe - "Just when was it that the average American became a mindless drone who accepted whatever illegal and unconstitutional action that the "emperor" decided he felt like committing today?" I think it began during the Reagan Administration and continued through the George W. Bush... Manchurian Candidate at 8:04 AM May 21, 2014 Add a commentíSee all commentsí 152 To stabilize this new system, the law set up a complex system of funds, including one known as the Temporary Risk Corridors Program, that collect money from insurers and transfer it from companies with healthier, less expensive consumers to those with sicker, more costly consumers. This system was supposed to pay for itself, as does a similar one used to shift money between drug plans in the Medicare Part D program. But insurance industry officials have grown increasingly anxious about the new system's adequacy. Pressure is most acute on insurers in states where healthy consumers were allowed to remain in old plans that are not sold on the new online marketplaces, an option Obama offered to states amid a political firestorm over plan cancellations last year. The president had promised people would be able to stick with their plans. The renewal temporarily solved a political problem for the White House, but created a new one. Maintaining these old plans kept many healthy consumers out of the marketplaces, making the pool of new customers less healthy and therefore potentially more expensive for insurers, according to experts. “Premium hikes will likely be modest in much of the country. But probably not everywhere.”- Larry Levitt, an insurance expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation ft▼ SHARE THIS QUOTE In a series of White House meetings over the last several months, Obama and other senior administration officials have sought to persuade insurance company CEOs to nonetheless hold rates in check, arguing that the marketplaces would stabilize over time. But with proposed 2015 rates beginning to come in, the administration acceded to industry demands for a clear guarantee that more money would be available to cover potential losses. "In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year, HHS recognizes that the Affordable Care Act requires the secretary to make full payments to issuers," the regulation published Friday notes. "In that event, HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments, subject to the availability of appropriations." That language allows the administration to tap funds appropriated for other health programs to supplement payments to insurers, according to administration and industry officials. Among congressional Republicans, the decision has raised concerns. "If the program costs more than it brings in, the secretary would be able to divert money intended for other programs," Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee warned. Whether the new regulations will be sufficient to control rates remains unclear. America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm, welcomed the administration's move, saying in a statement that the regulations "provide important clarity about how these insurer-financed programs will work as health plans prepare their rates for 2015." In a note to investors this week, J.P. Morgan also noted that the new rules "should improve stability of the exchange market." But some insurers continue to warn of bigger increases. Larry Levitt, an insurance expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, cautioned that some consumers may still be in for sticker shock. "Premium hikes will likely be modest in much of the country," he said. "But probably not everywhere." noam.levey@latimes.com Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times ft bgiuÿs mp |
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 11:32 AM Post #576 |
|
Thank you very much, Foxglove!  When the regulation changes were published, I was hoping somebody smarter than myself would identify how the changes alter the situation. The quote above seems to be the limit of that so far. My guess is that the "availability of appropriations" will include money from tomorrows budget (years that follow) spent today. I'm also guessing that before May 2016 we'll see some kind of an effort to extend the 3-R's. Since that is law, it will be interesting to see how they try it using regulations. ADD: That "subject to the availability of appropriations" is about as open ended as can be! Could it include appropriations for SS, Medicare, Medicaid...? Edited by kbp, May 21 2014, 11:34 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 11:59 AM Post #577 |
|
One of the little monsters they built is still hungry!
|
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 12:48 PM Post #578 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/05/20/king-v-sebelius-if-the-plain-meaning-of-the-aca-was-good-enough-for-congress-then-its-good-enough-for-the-fourth-circuit/ King v. Sebelius: If The Plain Meaning Of The ACA Was Good Enough For Congress, Then It's Good Enough For The Fourth Circuit Michael F. Cannon Last week, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., heard oral arguments in King v. Sebelius. King is one of four cases challenging the implementation of ObamaCare’s Exchange subsidies, and the penalties they trigger, through federal Exchanges. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides those subsidies only “through an Exchange established by the State.” Virginia opted not to establish an Exchange, making the subsidies unavailable and exempting an estimated 287,000 residents from penalties under the individual mandate. The Obama administration decided to issue those subsidies in Virginia — and the 33 other states with federal Exchanges — anyway, a decision that subjected the King plaintiffs to penalties from which they are statutorily exempt. They filed suit to stop the illegal subsidies that cause their economic injury. Federal district courts have ruled against the plaintiffs in King and a related case; both rulings are on appeal. (Jonathan Adler and I sorta got the ball rolling on these cases. Here’s the brief we filed in King.) The three-judge King panel consisted of Judge Roger L. Gregory, Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, and Judge Andre M. Davis, all Democratic appointees. The plaintiffs/appellants were represented by attorney Michael Carvin, and the government/appellees by Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery. Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael represented the Commonwealth, which reversed its position from supporting the plaintiffs to supporting the federal government. (Virginia recently changed attorneys general.) I wasn’t able to attend this hearing, and have only listened to the audio (about 52 minutes). I understood Davis to be asking most of the questions, followed by Gregory. Each seemed quite skeptical of the plaintiffs’ case. (I don’t recall Thacker asking any questions.) The plaintiffs in Halbig v. Sebelius, a related case, drew a more receptive panel from the D.C. Circuit. There wasn’t much new in the King hearing. As with the district court judges, Davis’ and Gregory’s skepticism stemmed from fundamental misunderstandings of both the PPACA and the nature of these cases. Davis asked Carvin questions like,
Davis also misstates the question before the court as one of values, not law. Whether the plain meaning of the statute is a good idea or a bad idea is not relevant. It is the court’s role to give effect to the clear language of the statute. If the plain meaning of the PPACA was good enough for Congress, then it’s good enough for the Fourth Circuit. If Davis is upset that applying the clear language of the statute at this point would take health-insurance subsidies away from millions of Americans, he should blame President Obama for inducing people into the Exchanges with billions of taxpayer dollars that his own law clearly prevented him from spending in the first place. The one novel aspect of this hearing was the brief filed by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) and argued by Solicitor General Raphael. They asked the court to rule against the plaintiffs on the theory that Congress did not, as the Supreme Court requires, provide “clear notice” that Exchange subsidies would be available only in state-established Exchanges. As evidence, they cite correspondence between Virginia and federal officials about whether Virginia will establish an Exchange that never mentions that the subsidies will be available only if the state does so. There are at least two big problems with Virginia’s “clear notice” argument. First, Congress did provide clear notice. Repeatedly. The language prohibiting subsidies outside of state-established Exchanges is as clear as the language prohibiting them to (A) people who purchase insurance outside of an Exchange, (B) households below and above 100-400 percent of the federal poverty level, (C) workers with an offer of adequate coverage from an employer, and (D) individuals not lawfully present in the United States. Those restrictions on eligibility for Exchange subsidies appear in the same part of the statute and in the same manner as the language prohibiting subsidies in federal Exchanges. No one of any political stripe has ever claimed that those restrictions are unclear. Second, if states did not know that Congress offered Exchange subsidies only through state-established Exchanges, it is because the Obama administration misrepresented the statute. Had the administration adhered to the obvious meaning of the statute, no one would have doubted that Congress gave states clear notice, or that the administration’s interpretation of the statute accurately captured Congress’ intent. It remains to be seen what the Fourth Circuit will do, but the questions from the bench did not bode well for the plaintiffs. A ruling is expected from the D.C. Circuit in Halbig at any time. |
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 01:07 PM Post #579 |
|
...The one novel aspect of this hearing was the brief filed by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) and argued by Solicitor General Raphael. They asked the court to rule against the plaintiffs on the theory that Congress did not, as the Supreme Court requires, provide “clear notice” that Exchange subsidies would be available only in state-established Exchanges. As evidence, they cite correspondence between Virginia and federal officials about whether Virginia will establish an Exchange that never mentions that the subsidies will be available only if the state does so. Would an intentionally incorrect answer be a means to use another law to make it the correct answer! |
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 01:20 PM Post #580 |
|
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/21/The-VA-is-a-Vision-of-the-Future-Under-Obamacare The VA is a Vision of the Future Under Obamacare [...] Apparently the Bush administration knew there were significant problems with wait times and scheduling when it left office. This information was passed on to the Obama administration during the transition. The problem is not partisan but systemic. But as a piece published yesterday by the Cleveland Plain Dealer points out, this may be just the beginning.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | May 21 2014, 01:48 PM Post #581 |
|
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-106-page-hhs-document-revealing-scope-obamacare-rollout-disaster/ Judicial Watch Obtains 106-Page HHS Document Revealing Scope of Obamacare Rollout Disaster You gotta read this. It certainly exposes lies about the status of the exchange as they reported what they did NOT know yet! |
|
|
|
| Baldo | May 21 2014, 02:04 PM Post #582 |
|
On April 17, 2014, President Obama announced that eight million people had signed up for health insurance on Affordable Healthcare Act exchanges. That figure, however, may be substantially over-inflated. According to testimony in May by the America’s Health Insurance Plans association before the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, “Because of the challenges that surfaced with the launch of the Exchanges in October 2013, some consumers were advised to create a new account and enroll again. As a result, insurers have many duplicate enrollments in their system for which they never received any payment.” “Once again, Judicial Watch is able to get information through FOIA that no one else had gotten – the specifics about the unmitigated failure of the Obamacare healthcare.gov collapse,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration tried to cover this up, Congress failed to follow through, but we managed to get the truth about the $667 million Obamacare website. Imagine what would have happened to Obamacare if the American people knew only one person was able to enroll on its first day? What other Obamacare failures is President Obama hiding?” In addition to its FOIA lawsuit to obtain enrollment figures for the Healthcare.gov rollout, Judicial Watch, on March 27, 2014, also filed a FOIA lawsuit against the HHS for records regarding the testing and oversight of the Obama administration’s error-filled “834” reporting forms. Form 834 is an electronic file sent from HealthCare.gov to an insurance company after a consumer picks a health care coverage plan. An inaccurate 834 form may result in consumers either not having coverage, or being turned down for payment claims. It has been estimated that as many as 33 percent of the 834 forms for enrollees in the federal health care website may have been inaccurate, incomplete, or missing altogether. These documents had to be subpoenaed through the courts. Why are we the people denied the right to know? Like most of us here suspected, the true statistics of Obama-care are much worse |
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | May 22 2014, 05:44 AM Post #583 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
The bailout rules are just an effort to prevent large premium increases before the elections. |
|
|
|
| kbp | May 22 2014, 07:28 AM Post #584 |
|
Last count I recall was the 2,700 page law has created 60,000 pages of regulations. |
|
|
|
| kbp | May 22 2014, 07:44 AM Post #585 |
|
I've made it obvious that I'm too lazy to read the entire script of the new regulations, so going with what we have from reporters that evidently read them... The premium hike prevention the new reg's brought about was written assurance to the insurance companies that HHS would pull appropriations for the bailout from other parts of their budget (borrow from Peter to pay Paul). The profit/loss/bailout doesn't really change, it merely provides the delay in properly adjusting the premiums to reflect reality, action taken (or not!) is made with knowledge the bailout funding should be available. I can't wait to see what 2016 will bring us. They were so bold to regulate how they'll shift appropriations. Will they be so bold to try re-writing law with regulations to extend the 3-R's? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:55 AM Jul 13